Member since: Thu Mar 16, 2006, 03:07 PM
Number of posts: 9,557
Number of posts: 9,557
- 2016 (89)
- 2015 (77)
- 2014 (87)
- 2013 (145)
- 2012 (211)
- 2011 (14)
- December (14)
- Older Archives
I AM PUTTING THIS UPDATE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD FOR ALL TO SEE!!
DU'er passiveporcupine has alerted me to a news report with very different numbers from those flying around twitter. Since this is from an accredited news agency, I am going to assume these numbers are correct. I am deeply sorry if I misrepresented the totals yesterday. Twitter was quite active with the numbers I originally posted, and I did not see anywhere these numbers. I do think they are more accurate, however. Please accept my most sincere apology.
CHEYENNE – Of Laramie County’s 51 delegates up for grabs during Saturday’s Democratic caucus, 26 went to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and 25 went to Sen. Bernie Sanders.
More Sanders supporters than Clinton hopefuls cast ballots at the caucus event, held in Central High’s gymnasium. But Clinton came up on enough surrogate, or absentee, ballots to give her a slight edge over the Vermont senator.
In total, just over 800 Laramie County voters showed up to make their presidential preference known, and 621 people turned in surrogate ballots.
Of those in-person voters, 329 sided with Clinton and 474 were for Sanders.
Of the more than 600 surrogate ballots received, 402 went in favor of Clinton and a mere 215 went to Sanders.
Clinton received 731 of those 1,430 total votes while Sanders took 689 – a 42-vote difference.
@WilburnZac MSNBC said Laramie co had little over 800 show up. Bern got 689. Hill 111.Then 625 surrogates votes for hill came in.She won by 47
Very suspicious. The neighboring county of Albany went to Berni 669-191. Laramie is the most populated county.
Another post on twitter states:
Phoenix Dragon @1PhoenixDragon 35m"There is a provision for surrogate voting. But surrogate means there has to be a person acting as surrogate." #Wyoming #WY #Wyo #WYCaucus
The question is, can one person carrying in a box of surrogate votes be the surrogate for all 625 of them?
ON EDIT: Now trending on twitter that there must be a person for each surrogate ballot. Not sure if it is true. Predicting this will be challenged.
UPDATE: It's being reported that people are starting to challenge the surrogates. Must have 1 person per surrogate.
Posted by FourScore | Sat Apr 9, 2016, 04:49 PM (157 replies)
WHOA!!! Harper's -- Clintons’ charitable enterprise is a vehicle to launder money and enrich friends
This article is from November 2015. How did it get such little attention? This is shocking stuff! Holy Shit! If the Republicans have all of this information from their Benghazi hearings and they are just sitting on it - then the democrats are fucked!!!. They have all they need to annihilate Hillary in the general. Is this why the FBI is taking so long? Holy shit!!!
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.
By Ken Silverstein
...One money-laundering expert and former intelligence officer based in the Middle East who had access to the foundation’s confidential banking information told me that members of royal families in Middle Eastern countries, including Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, have donated money to the CGEP that has then been sluiced through to the Clinton Foundation. He added that the CGEP has also received money from corrupt officials in South Africa during the regime of Jacob Zuma and from senior officials in Equatorial Guinea, one of the most brutal and crooked dictatorships in the world. “Equatorial Guinea doesn’t give to the Clinton Foundation in New York because it’s too embarrassing,” he said. “They give the money anonymously in Canada and that buys them political protection in the United States. The Clinton Foundation is a professionally structured money-laundering operation.”
“I can’t say for certain that it’s illegal because I don’t have access to all the financial information but at best they are skating along the edge,” the source added. “They get away with it because the major media outlets are too lazy to look into it but the Benghazi Committee has access to the key information, and so do government agencies like the IRS, the SEC and the FEC. If you put together the information that all of these agencies have it’s obvious that the foundation is a fraud.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton have in tandem made enormous sums of money since Bill left the White House. According to the Washington Post, they netted at least $136.5 million between 2001 and 2012. “All the Benghazi committee has to do is match up Hillary’s travel as secretary of state with Bill’s speaking arrangements,” my source in the Middle East said. “Bill heads out to foreign countries and he gets paid huge amounts of money for a thirty-minute speech and then she heads out for an official visit as a favor. She racked up more miles than any secretary of state and that’s one of the reasons why. How can they get away with that? The committee is either corrupt or incompetent, or both.”
There are other signs that the Clintons and their foundation may have violated federal, state, and international law. Under Treasury Department money-laundering rules, the Clinton Foundation is required to disclose every financial account it holds abroad. It has failed to disclose an account linked to the CGEP on its past eight tax returns.
Its biggest donors include some truly wonderful people and countries. There are, to name a few, the torture-happy, terror-exporting government of Saudi Arabia; a foundation controlled by Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian oligarch accused of bribery and corruption; and Frank Giustra, a penny-stock artist who became filthy rich with the generous assistance of Bill Clinton. In 2008, a former Kazakh official told reporters that Giustra, who established the CGEP with Clinton, donated millions to the foundation after Clinton helped him purchase uranium deposits in Kazakhstan. (At the time, Giustra denied this claim, pointing out that he had been engaged in mining deals in Kazakhstan since the 1990s.)
The Clinton Foundation has received more than $1 billion over the years to purchase HIV/AIDS drugs for poor people in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. However, a unit set up to receive the money—the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative, Inc., which was run by Ira Magaziner, a Clinton administration veteran with close ties to Hillary—clearly spent far, far less than it took in. In fact, the unit’s accounting practices were so shoddy that its license was revoked by the state of Massachusetts, where it was headquartered.
Posted by FourScore | Fri Apr 8, 2016, 07:41 PM (63 replies)
There is no way I can do this article justice due to Fair Use rules. Each sentence is a paragraph. You MUST follow the link to read this very damaging article.
With Saudi and Russian ties, Clinton machine’s tentacles are far reaching, according to Panama Papers
The Podesta Group, a lobbying firm headed by Clinton operatives, has made a pretty penny working for Saudi & Russia
...Hillary Clinton herself is not directly implicated, just one of her biggest campaign bundlers. What is more important about the story, however, is not that it exposes some kind of nefarious Russian plot — as questionable “NSA spook” author John Schindler appears to suggest with Cold War-esque hand-wringing in his Observer article — but rather that the Clinton machine is ultimately loyal to the dollar and to the dollar alone...
...The Saudi regime is one the largest donors to the Clinton Foundation. It has poured between $10 million and $25 million into the organization, which has been accused of carrying out an international money laundering scheme.
Perhaps most egregious of all, huge arms deals approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department also happened to place weapons in the hands of governments that donated money to the Clinton Foundation — including the autocratic Gulf regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar — an investigation the International Business Times found.
Moreover, Bill Clinton has garnered enormous fees for speeches in Saudi Arabia, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff points out, including $600,000 for two talks while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.
In his report on the Clinton machine’s ties to Saudi Arabia, Isikoff also notes that two “of the Clinton lobbyist-bundlers, Richard Sullivan and David Jones, are principals in a firm that, until late last year, represented the Russia Direct Investment Fund, a sovereign wealth fund co-founded by Vladimir Putin when he was prime minister.”
All of these actors are moving parts in the enormous Clinton machine, which has its tentacles everywhere, and — as journalist Matt Taibbi infamously wrote of Goldman Sachs — “relentlessly jams its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
Posted by FourScore | Fri Apr 8, 2016, 06:56 PM (10 replies)
I have never seen such an incredibly massive, impeccably orchestrated hit job as I am seeing in the works right now. The MSM is involved, the blogosphere is involved, and it trickles down here to places like DU. He is being attacked and hit like a boxer against the ropes. Boom! Boom! Boom! It doesn't matter if he's down. Hit him more. It doesn't matter that the match is won - knock him out!!
Bernie's campaign will not survive this. I know it. We all know it.
But it is probably the most short sighted political tactic I have ever seen.
I cannot and will not ever be able to join or back a candidate that uses this kind of this massive, corporate media-backed misinformation and smear job as I am watching before my very eyes. I want to scream, NO!!! STOP IT!! This is not good!! It's not good for the big picture!! It's not good for the party!!
The machine is now fully exposed and it is waaaay too big. Too powerful. Those of you who back this, beware.
Hit after hit after hit of false representation of his words, his interviews, his ideas.
This is not being a democrat, this is Tammany Hall. On steroids. This is something so ugly, so big, so massive, so pervasive.
Democracy is dead.
What I don't understand is why. Of course we can do math. Hillary has this. So why are they destroying one of the greatest political movements of core democratic values we've seen in decades? Why don't they just let this thing ride to the end and then accept Bernie's crowd into the fold? Why are they slashing and burning us to oblivion? We will not "come around". They are fracturing the party. But, why?
And if anyone thinks, with Time Warner Cable being one of her top donors that Net Neutrality will survive the next 4 years, you are living in a dream world. The one area where the media and the powers that be have not been able to control the message has been the internet. This will be the last internet supported campaign. Good by net neutrality.
I will not support ANY of this. Never. Such a shame. I really liked both candidates, I just preferred one over the other. But when this is over, I'm out. I cannot support this machine.
Posted by FourScore | Thu Apr 7, 2016, 11:29 AM (16 replies)
Bill Clinton Labor Sec Robert Reich: Bernie "absolutely correct" in Daily News, criticism "bonkers".
Bill Clinton Labor Sec Robert Reich: Bernie "absolutely correct" in Daily News, criticism "bonkers".
Wednesday Apr 06, 2016 · 2:56 PM EST
Another day, another liberal lion with serious economic chops slams the Clinton campaign’s bizarre attempt to suggest Bernie’s Daily News interview showed any diminished understanding of his own bank break-up plan:
(LINK to Reich’s statement here)
Pretty elegant and self-explanatory.
Secretary Reich served in three Democratic Presidential administrations and, after leaving government work, has written extensively on economics and economic policy from a left/liberal perspective. He wisely endorsed Bernie Sanders for President in late February.
Posted by FourScore | Wed Apr 6, 2016, 07:02 PM (5 replies)
Sep 29, 2015 @ 08:30 AM 423,850 views
The Mystery Of Hillary's Missing Millions
This story appears in the October 19, 2015 issue of Forbes. Subscribe
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have earned more than $230 million. But in federal filings the Clintons claim they are worth somewhere between $11 million and $53 million. After layering years of disclosures on top of annual tax returns, Forbes estimates their combined net worth at $45 million. Where did all of the money go? No one seems to know, and the Clintons aren’t offering any answers.
From 2001 to 2014 the power couple spent $95 million on taxes. Hillary’s 2008 presidential run cost her $13 million. Their two homes cost a combined $5 million, and the Clintons have given away $22 million to charity. All of this is according to FEC filings, property records and years of tax returns. Add it up and you get $135 million. If the Clintons made $230 million, spent $135 million and have just $45 million left over, what happened to the other $50 million?
“That’s kind of strange,” says Joe Biden’s accountant, Walter Deyhle. “You have to report all of your assets. You have to report assets that are owned by your spouse.”
It seems unlikely that the Clintons could have spent all of it. Over 14 years $50 million averages out to $3.6 million in extra expenses per year, or $9,800 per day.
WHERE COULD THAT much money have disappeared? The Clintons have been speaking around the world for years, and they count millions in travel expenses under their businesses. It is unclear whether they have paid for additional travel expenses out of their own pockets. It seems unlikely, but they could have given it away overseas: Donations to foreign charities are not deductible and would not be listed on tax returns. Billionaires like Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, Lakshmi Mittal of India and Joseph Safra of Brazil have donated to their foundation. Maybe the Clintons are returning the favor?...
Posted by FourScore | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 09:05 PM (7 replies)
Tweets are popping up this hour. I have no time to source this. Do your thing DU.
Posted by FourScore | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 06:13 PM (7 replies)
When Clinton pushed Obama to sign the Panama deal, the critics warned that Panama is a tax haven and this deal would open the flood gates for stashing off-shore money. Below are the statements from each candidate at the time.
WORDS MATTER. FACTS MATTER.
This is Bernie's speech against it:
Finally, Mr. President, let's talk about the Panama Free Trade Agreement.
Panama's entire annual economic output is only $26.7 billion a year, or about two-tenths of one percent of the U.S. economy. No-one can legitimately make the claim that approving this free trade agreement will significantly increase American jobs.
Then, why would we be considering a stand-alone free trade agreement with this country?
Well, it turns out that Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations to evade U.S. taxes by stashing their cash in off-shore tax havens. And, the Panama Free Trade Agreement would make this bad situation much worse.
Each and every year, the wealthy and large corporations evade $100 billion in U.S. taxes through abusive and illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and other countries.
According to Citizens for Tax Justice, "A tax haven . . . has one of three characteristics: It has no income tax or a very low-rate income tax; it has bank secrecy laws; and it has a history of non-cooperation with other countries on exchanging information about tax matters. Panama has all three of those. ... They're probably the worst."
Mr. President, the trade agreement with Panama would effectively bar the U.S. from cracking down on illegal and abusive offshore tax havens in Panama. In fact, combating tax haven abuse in Panama would be a violation of this free trade agreement, exposing the U.S. to fines from international authorities.
In 2008, the Government Accountability Office said that 17 of the 100 largest American companies were operating a total of 42 subsidiaries in Panama. This free trade agreement would make it easier for the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes and it must be defeated. At a time when we have a record-breaking $14.7 trillion national debt and an unsustainable federal deficit, the last thing that we should be doing is making it easier for the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in this country to avoid paying their fair share in taxes by setting-up offshore tax havens in Panama.
Adding insult to injury, Mr. President, the Panama FTA would require the United States to waive Buy America requirements for procurement bids from thousands of foreign firms, including many Chinese firms, incorporated in this major tax haven. That may make sense to China, it does not make sense to me.
Finally, Panama is also listed by the State Department as a major venue for Mexican and Colombian drug cartel money laundering. Should we be rewarding this country with a free trade agreement? I think the answer should be a resounding no.
There is much more in Bernie's speech about how these trade deals end up costing American jobs and hurting the American people.
Hillary's released statement for it:
Posted by FourScore | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 10:05 AM (42 replies)
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% From Panama Leak
3 Apr, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig
Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results. In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.
But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.
The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the Guardian is quick to reassure that “much of the leaked material will remain private.”
What do you expect? The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include
Rockefeller Family Fund
W K Kellogg Foundation
Open Society Foundation (Soros)
among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.
Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny “balancing” western country like Iceland. A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.
The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the database which you and I cannot see. They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations’ sensitive information by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction of MI6.
What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?
What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could trace?
That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don’t have to tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and do something about?
And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?
Hundreds of thousands of people have read this post in the 11 hours since it was published – despite it being overnight here in the UK. There are 235,918 “impressions” on twitter (as twitter calls them) and over 3,700 people have “shared” so far on Facebook, bringing scores of new readers each.
I would remind you that this blog is produced free for the public good and you are welcome to republish or re-use this article or any other material freely anywhere without requesting further permission.
Posted by FourScore | Tue Apr 5, 2016, 12:34 AM (12 replies)
Bernie has said over and over that he never wants to win an election through voter suppression. I could be wrong, but it looks to me as though shenanigans happened.
Right now there are allegations flying all around. Apparently, this got sent out to the delegates (not clear by whom):
Then, only Bernie supporters were contacted and told they did indeed need to be there (probably by a Bernie organizer). The caucus chair of Clark County has been fired - not sure why...but I think it's about forwarding an internal email with sensitive Clinton info.
It's dirty. It's icky. Bernie had nothing to do with it; just like Hillary had nothing to do with the AZ disaster.
And how many more delegates did it really get us? Is it worth it? Honestly, is it?
It just ain't right.
A vote is sacred. Always.
FELLOW BERNIE SUPPORTERS - This is OUR revolution. He has said over and over, it's not about him, it's about US. Is this who we are? Really? Because it's not who I am. Are we going to complain about what happened in Massachusetts and Arizona, but be gleeful about this in NV? We shouldn't get to pick and choose our moral outrage.
I know I'm going to get beat up like all hell for this, but bring it on, because I know I'm on the right side this time.
In THIS case, I'm not on Bernie's side; I'm not on Hillary's side; I'm on the side of VOTER INTEGRITY!!
Shit! Bring it on!
EDIT: My preference at this point would be to delete this thread. However, there is so much discussion, that I will leave it for a bit longer. Clearly, the issue here is mostly that I do not understand the caucus process. But I believe I will delete it soon as I do not want my post in any way to reflect badly on the Bernie supporters who worked so hard for this win. Additionally, the email sent out (posted in this OP) appears to reflect the actual rules (see post #60 from RichVRichV). I will say, however, I am not a big fan of the caucus process.
Posted by FourScore | Sun Apr 3, 2016, 01:00 AM (89 replies)